Scientific Consensus Supports Community Water Fluoridation (CWF)

Richard Sauerheber – My observation has nothing to do with being “illegal and a violation of free speech rights” If the person yelling FIRE! had a severe paranoia and actually believed themselves and everyone else in the theater to be in immediate danger – perhaps the person saw a frightening glow from several locations. If they had no knowledge of what cell phones looked like in the dark they could easily jump to conclusions, employ the precautionary principle and try to warn everyone. Everyone else in the theater would accept the consensus that cell phones did not represent a significant danger and ignore the glow. Although the more paranoid might demand that cell phones and other battery-powered devices be banned from public places because of the known risk of batteries catching fire.

The bottom line is that, despite all of the alleged “evidence” you and other fluoridation opponents present in support of your allegations that CWF is harmful and ineffective, the consensus of relevant science and health experts that fluoridation is safe and effective continues. Explain that fact.

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Wrong again. First, there are many doctors and other health professionals who do no research themsleves on fluoridation or fluoride toxicology and who accept the false tenets promoted by fluoridatinoists, while at the same time those same professionals understand other health issues very well. In fact it is the rule rather than the exception that doctors understand many issues better than others while some issues are not understood well. Doctors are humans.

Second, the NRC concluded that the current EPA MCL's for fluoride in water are not fully protective of human health.and should be lowered. The committee also admitted that much more research is needed because many questions remain unanswered. in othe words, fluoridationists put the cart before the horse and went ahead long ago and began fluoridating people without full knowledge of whether it would be safe or not. We now know it is not harmless to all consumers and the program should be halted and never should have begun in the first place. it is not FDA approved. And only the FDA (not the CDC, EPA, or ADA) has Congressional authority to regulate minerals claimed to have health benefit when ingested..

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Now I've heard everything. Telling the truth, that eating and drinking fluoride ion does not and cannot reduce dental caries, is regarded as "yelling fire in a crowded room"? The latter is illegal and a violation of free speech rights. The former is simply being a patriotic whistleblower.

Eating/drinkng fluoride from water infused with fluosilicic acid, caustic soda, and the other contaminants of fluoridation does not reduce dental decay and never has. The oringal observation with natural calcium fluoride that appeared to be associated with reduced caries was a false correlation that Ziegelbercker disproved by examining all the data, not just selected data that appeared to show the correlation. There is no effect on caries of drinking F water at levels all the way to 6 ppm, but of course the incidence of dental fluorosis increases progressively as a function of water fluoride concentration. Fluorosis increases in incidence in every artificially fluoridated city and there are no exceptions. Even fluoridationist Pollick has published this fact.

Read the textbooks by dentist statistician Phillip Sutton. Read the text by John Yiamouyiannis. Read the detailed published 30-year studies by Teotia and Teotia.

This is not yelling fire in a crowd that incites death and injury. This is just the opposite. It is correctring a long-standing myth from a false correlation dating back to the 1930's. The ADA reversed its original stance from the 1950's against fluoridation, and now promotes it. Were they crying fire in a crowded room when they opposed it? Are the correct now and wrong then? or are they wrong now and correct then? We now know they were correct then and are wrong now, and the truth needs to be told (without alarming people to cause dangerous runs for cover).

There is nothing dangerous about avoiding consumption of artificially fluoridated water. In fact, most people I know in fluoridated cities do not drink city water. They buy gallon jugs of water for drinking. They haven't killed themselves or others by avoiding fluoridated water. In fact, they are protecting the health of their bony skeleton.

Bones carry out funcitons far more importrant than simply helping you stand straight up to walk down the road. Bone is a live tissue that is the repository for calcium ion in the bloodstream when dietary calcium is insufficient. Blood calcium is necessary to support the beating heart. Heart muscle has no SR to store its own calcium like skeletal muscle has. It is dependent on extracellular blood calcium to mediate muscle contraction subsequent to electrical excitation of the cell. Bones are crucial to support the functioning beating heart. Every time the heart contracts, it is because extracellulaur calcium diffuses into the heart cell, and when it relaxes it is because calcium ion is pumped back out of the cell. Lub-dub sounds occur after calcium going in then calcium coming back out. If the blood calcium level drops below physiologic range about 2 mM, then the beating heart stops. This is precisely what happend to the U.S. Coastguardsman in Hooper Bay, Alaska from fluoride overdose. There is no need for alarm! Just don't drink water that is overfluoridated.

There is cause for concern and action though, to protect bones and to allow bone to be fully responsive to blood calcium ion needs. Don't drink fluoridated water your whole life, because doing so converts normal bone into non-resorbable bone -- the more fluoride accumulates, the more abnormal bone one has.

Again, one doesn't need to run for the hills to avoid a fire. You need to drink clean water long-term that is not fluoridated. If one is in the desert and no other water is available, of course one drinks the fluoridated water to avoid dehydration. But one doesn't go looking for fluoridated water when clean water is available. F water does not reduce dental caries but it does cause F to accumulate in bone. Plain and simple, except for some people fluoridated water is the only water available and avoiding it becomes more difficuilt. RO units in sinks are costly but necessary if bottled water or distilled water or hauled clean water are not available. Bone char (used to clean raw sugar to make white sugar) can filter water to remove fluoride, but bone char is now scarce. .

The best thing for a city to do is simly to halt adding fluoridation chemicals into water supplies. Don't halt adding chlorine becuse this serves a health purpose of sterilizing the water to kill pathogens. Fluoride though provides no physioogic functional purpose whatsoever and in fact water fluoridation needs to be properly named for what it causes, it is a bone fluoridation program that was hoped to be an oral ingestible caries-fighting decay preventive chemical, but it isn't. .

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration correctly labels fluoride additions into water as an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug. Fluoride ingestion is not and never has been FDA approved. The FDA is not "crying fire in a crowded room", but most certainly properly determines the safety and effectiveness of drugs, minerals, and supplements. Listen to them.

It does not matter whether the CWF Consensus is called a “Scientific Consensus” or an “Endorsement Consensus”. It appears to be a diversionary tactic to avoid addressing the fact that only a small minority of health care professionals in the world are represented by the organizations you listed as objecting to CWF. Exactly how many health professionals are represented by the AAEM, ICIM IABDM, IAOMT, HAD and ICA?

Q2) What group of experts do you and other fluoridation opponents (FOs) accept as a reliable majority of scientists and health professionals who (as a group) are educated and experienced enough to accurately evaluate the 70-year body of evidence and form a legitimate educated consensus about the benefits and risks of CWF? Obviously (according to FOs), it is none of the mainstream science and health organizations or their members who have not joined the anti-F crusade despite what you believe to be conclusive and obvious evidence of harm. According to you, these professionals are, “like a bunch of lemmings, they all have faith in each other, but not the facts to support fluoridation.” Do you accept CarryAnne’s depiction of ADA and EPA and ATA members as "greedy, ignorant, willfully blind, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths", and do you extend it to the hundreds of thousands of professionals who are members of all the other science and health care organizations that continue to recognize the benefits of CWF who have not publically denounced CWF?

Q3) If the representatives of those health organizations that publically recognize the benefits of fluoridation who have not publically denounced CWF have completely ignored &/or misinterpreted the body of evidence you believe proves CWF to be a dangerous practice and blindly followed each other, how can you possibly trust any of them to be competent in any other areas of their practices?

These organizations include: The World Health Organization which represents 191 countries, the British Dental Association (around 22,000 members), the British Medical Association (over 156,000 members), the Irish Dental Association (over 1,800 members), the American Dental Association (over 114,000 members), the American Medical Association (over 200,000 members), the American Academy of Pediatrics (around 64,000 members), the Canadian Dental Association (over 16,000 members), the Canadian Medical Association (80,000 members), The Australian Dental Association (over 11,000 members), the Australian Medical Association (over 28,000 members), the New Zealand Dental Association (2,026 members), and so on… Obviously the same question applies to all of the representatives of the scientific organizations that publically recognize the benefits of CWF and have not denounced the practice.

I agree with your statement, “Consensus is not scientific evidence”, however you seem to be missing the fact that the Scientific Consensus is based on an evaluation of the Scientific Evidence.Q4) Do you accept the Wikipedia definition of Scientific Consensus as “the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.”?Q4A)If NO – Explain what you would call an agreement of conclusions based on an evaluation of the relevant body of evidence by relevant experts. Then explain whether you would accept that term as applying to the four conclusions outlined below and CWF.Q4B)If YES – Explain how you can claim that the anti-F position is in any way, “the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study” when only about six health organizations and their practitioners endorse it?-- Do you accept what I consider a fact that the majority of relevant science or health organizations and practitioners accept the three scientific /health related conclusions below?-- Do you accept the term Scientific Consensus as applicable to the three scientific/ health related conclusions below that are accepted by the majority of relevant science or health organizations and practitioners? (a) The benefits of brushing with fluoridated toothpaste (reducing the risk of tooth decay and improving dental health) outweigh any known risks;(b) The benefits of adding disinfectants to treat drinking water outweigh risks of ingesting residual disinfectants and disinfection byproducts even though, according to anti-F “logic”, there is no “dose control” (07-27-2018 12:55 PM) and “there is not now nor has ever been any consensus of safety” (08-21-2018 01:14 PM) for ingesting sodium hypochlorite, chloroform and other disinfection byproducts, and, as far as I am aware, “There are no prospective randomized controlled trials, good science, supporting your theory for [the safety of] dilute short contact topical or ‘ingested’ [chloroform and DBPs]” (08-19-2018 02:18 AM). If you accept the consensus of disinfection, it is difficult to understand how you can dismiss the consensus on CWF;(c) The benefits of vaccination for members of a community far outweigh the known risks. Consequences of discontinuing vaccination would be serious – probably catastrophic – if a majority of individuals chose to skip vaccination for flu, polio, MMR, DTP, chicken pox, shingles (for elders), etc.

The IAOMT constitutes only one of the six alternative health organizations and 6-7 environmental, spiritual and cultural groups you and CarryAnne listed as supporting the anti-F opinions.

Q5) Have all of the other anti-F groups published “position papers on fluoridation” – if not, are they and their representatives all “like a bunch of lemmings, they all have faith in each other, but not the facts to [disprove the benefits and effectiveness of] fluoridation”?

Your requests (08-27-2018 01:40 AM), “Please provide the names and internet links to the top three organizations' position papers on fluoridation. … Randy, relying on these organizations for endorsements is quite different than relying on them for quality position papers referenced with primary research” remind me of the ‘wizard’ behind the curtain frantically trying to divert attention from reality.

First, take a look at the IAOMT “Position Paper against Fluoride Use…”. It is simply a blanket condemnation of exposure to fluoride ions from any source at any exposure level and included newspaper and magazine articles, blogs, etc. provided as “references”.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it does not appear that the IAOMT conducted any of the primary research. They simply collected and listed all of the studies which had concluded (or could be adjusted to appear as though they concluded) exposure to fluoride ions was harmful and ineffective. The “Position Paper” was not even a review that compared and evaluated studies with different designs, qualities, conclusions, etc. to present a considered, scientific evaluation. As David pointed out (08-27-2018 02:14 PM), “So, when I look at that "Position Statement, and see quotes about Bone Fractures and Weakened Bones which may occur under certain conditions, which have nothing to do with water fluoridation, I think a normal person [particularly trained and experienced ‘normal’ health care professionals] would conclude that this statement was cherry-picked and taken out of context. If you would like to explain what those certain conditions are, and provide primary evidence from the 2006 NRC Report explaining the statement, so that we can all see it in its full context, that would be fine. But to provide a link to a deceptive opinion piece is hardly ‘primary evidence’ of anything.”

The IAOMT “Position Paper” could be copied/pasted by any of the other anti-F groups, and they too would, according to your beliefs, have published a “Position Paper”.

Your insistence on an arbitrary fabrication of "Endorsement Consensus” to replace “Scientific Consensus” in the specialized area of CWF, your definition of the majority of health practitioners as “a bunch of lemmings” who ignorantly or willingly ignore what you consider “facts”, and your belief that a comprehensive list of anti-F references in a “Position Paper” somehow constitutes all the relevant “facts, primary research, not estimates based on assumptions” needed to understand all the complexities of CWF are simply diversionary tactics. You have created a curtain and loudspeaker with towering flames and general chaos designed to hide the fact that fluoridation opponents are a vocal minority of activists who have not been able to provide legitimate evidence sufficient to change the Scientific Consensus (or even the "Endorsement Consensus") that CWF is a safe and beneficial public health initiative.

It is difficult to imagine you actually believe that because position papers with several thousand references to fluoridation-supporting research is not readily available to the public (most of whom will never read or understand them anyway) means that those thousands of professionals responsible for their patient’s care and wellbeing have not examined reviews and studies like those below and accepted their conclusions as more legitimate than the “Position Papers” of anti-F activists?

References to peer reviewed reviews and studies which support the benefits &/or lack of harmful effects of CWF (with citations of primary research) that you apparently missed. Unfortunately, comment length limitations prevent the posting of most review conclusions:

The 2011 European SCHER review, Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water

Genotoxicity – “Positive genotoxicity findings in vivo were only observed at doses that were highly toxic

to animals, while lower doses were generally negative for genotoxicityCarcinogenicity – “On the basis of the results from the most adequate long-term carcinogenicity studies,

there is only equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity of fluoride in male rats and no consistent evidence of carcinogenicity in mice”

Carcinogenicity, Epidemiological studies – “SCHER agrees that epidemiological studies do not indicate a clear link between fluoride in drinking water, and osteosarcoma and cancer in general. There is no evidence from animal studies to support the link, thus fluoride cannot be classified as carcinogenic.”

Neurotoxicity – “SCHER concludes that fluoride at concentrations in drinking water permitted in the EU does not influence the reproductive capacity.”Mechanism of fluoride action in caries prevention – “The predominant beneficial cariostatic effects of fluoride in erupted teeth occur locally at the tooth surface. This could be achieved by fluoridated toothpaste, fluoride- containing water, fluoridated salt, etc. maintaining elevated intraoral fluoride levels of the teeth, dental biofilm and saliva throughout the day.”

According to the 2006 NRC review, “Fluoride in Drinking Water”, the “committee was asked to evaluate independently the scientific basis of EPA’s MCLG of 4 mg/L and SMCL of 2 mg/L in drinking water and the adequacy of those guidelines to protect children and others from adverse health effects” The review did not conclude there was ANY REASON (no adverse health effects) to lower the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level of fluoride ions in drinking water of 2.0 ppm (nearly three times the optimal level).

Not a review, but important recent evidence from a study promoted by fluoridation opponents.

The 2018 National Toxicity Program study, An Evaluation of Neurotoxicity Following Fluoride Exposure from Gestational Through Adult Ages in Long-Evans Hooded Rats:

If a position is taken, AARP will fairly evaluate the available body of evidence

CarryAnne – I was about to submit the observations and questions below when you posted your most recent comment and opinions, “the focus of this thread and the AARP is the adverse impact of fluoridation policy on Senior Health which includes the immorality of using municipal water supplies to dose the population with a substance which is known to be medically contraindicated for many with inflammatory, immune system, thyroid and kidney disease.” It is remarkable that you seem to believe your thread, the sole intent of which is to present unconfirmed speculations about the allegedly serious and obvious risks of harm from community water fluoridation (CWF), should somehow be immune to challenges from those who accept the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective.

My goal is to expose your tactics of attempting to bypass the processes of scientific review and consensus to scare members of the public into joining your fear-based crusade. Most readers of your propaganda will never read – and have not been trained to evaluate – the studies you select for your press releases and “lists of evidence” – but they will respond to fear. The primary issue I continue to stress is why, if you have legitimate evidence to prove CWF is harmful &/or ineffective, fluoridation opponents (FOs) have been completely unable to change the scientific consensus.

Even if I understood nothing of how to interpret and understand scientific studies, and I was unable to detect the manipulations of conclusions and other tactics employed by FOs, I would not accept your libelous accusations I challenged earlier (08-26-2018 05:47 PM) that the ADA and EPA and ATA and any members who don’t support the anti-F agenda are "greedy, ignorant, willfully blind, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths” , or Dr. Osmunson’s 07-09-2018 09:09 PM claim about the CDC, ADA and AAP, “All the so called "scientific" organizations were all pupets of each other with fluoridation.”

Back to my original observations & questions:If you have indeed answered my specific questions (08-21-2018 09:36 PM, 08-21-2018 02:47 PM, 08-21-2018 01:00 PM) as you claimed (08-26-2018 05:58 PM), then simply provide a date-time reference to each of your specific answers (for example, Q1 answered - 8/??/2018, Q2 - answered 8/??/2018, etc.), I’ll go look them up. If they were in fact answered, I will apologize – and probably request additional clarification. I have not “attacked [you] and every other opponent” on this thread or in any of the online comments you have posted. I have simply pointed out that this thread was never intended to be an impartial discussion of the benefits and risks of community water fluoridation (CWF), quoted some of your comments, and requested that you explain them in the context of the scientific consensus and the majority of organizations and professionals who accept it.

If you are accusing me of deleting a list of your citations after one of my challenges to James Reeves, your specific accusation, “Suppression of Science & Silencing of Dissent: Trolls are Treacherous ––– Within hours of the above challenging commentary [my comment to JR], I replied with the following eight citations, but the unscrupulous troop of fluoride trolls which seems to include the infamous vanity clum ‘American Fluoridation Society’ managed to delete it from that social media thread by tag team flagging it even more quickl.” is as false as your other complaints.

I certainly have never tried to have any of your comments removed from this or any comment page, and I suspect no other fluoridation supporter would either – there is no reason to. It is far more effective to leave your comments intact, challenge your interpretations and conclusions, request clarification of what appear to be illogical statements – as I am doing here – and let others evaluate the legitimacy of your strongly presented opinions. The fact is, the scientific and health communities have overwhelmingly dismissed your unsubstantiated claims.

You have a specific agenda of posting only the “evidence” you and other FOs believe support your agenda to “Demand AARP Take Action” and oppose CWF – a public health measure the scientific consensus accepts as safe and beneficial – one that the major national and international science and health organizations recognize as a safe and effective initiative to reduce dental decay, which can actually cause significant health problems, not to mention treatment costs.

My agenda, and those of the other science-supporters, is to point out that tactics of anti-science activists (ASAs) –– trying to bypass the scientific review and consensus processes by influencing the public with fear-based attacks on the credibility of science –– are dangerous, not only for individual health and science-based initiatives, but they also generate an overall distrust of science and provide fodder for various conspiracy theories. As Dr. Johnson stated (07-07-2018 03:39 PM), “I will be busy again for several days working to unscare communities where you and your groups have scared families with unsubstantiated claims. It is more difficult to unscare people than it is to scare them.”

Listing dozens of studies in a public forum that you believe prove anti-F agenda legitimate is irrelevant – I can list hundreds of studies experts have used to establish and confirm the consensus that CWF is safe and effective. I suspect few if any readers will read any of the abstracts, and even fewer will read or have the training and experience to understand the entire study. That is precisely why, if FOs have any legitimate scientific evidence to support their opinions, they should take it up with those experts who can understand and evaluate it. I understand why the “evidence” presented by FOs to date has been rejected as sufficient to change the scientific consensus. Although I am not a relevant expert, I can recognize flaws and limitations of the studies FOs promote as “proving harm”.

On the other hand, making the unsupported and libelous claims I highlighted on my previous post (the one you have allegedly answered?), where you accuses the ADA and EPA and ATA and any members who don’t support the anti-F agenda as "greedy, ignorant, willfully blind, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths” is not a scientific dialogue – it is fear-mongering – not to mention attacks on the professional integrity of thousands of health professionals.

If you and other ASAs are able to convince the public that your agenda is valid, your mission is successful and you don’t have to experience the inconvenience (and with current “evidence”, impossibility) of convincing the scientific and health communities your opinions are legitimate – the public will respond (and has responded) to the fear of the alleged significant risks of possible Cancer, Lowered IQ, Diabetes, Hypothyroidism, GI Effects, Arthritis, Hypersensitivity, Kidney Disease, ADHD, Brittle Bones, etc., exercise their democratic privileges, and vote to end CWF – against the advice of the scientific and health communities. The tactics of ASAs are akin to yelling FIRE! In a crowded theater when they see the glow from a cell phone – the Precautionary Principle according to ASAs.

Q7) Another of my questions (08-21-2018 09:36 PM) I don’t remember you answering: ”By your ‘logic’ those who demand that drinking water chlorination be halted because chlorine has been used as an immoral chemical weapon (and creates a toxic brew of disinfection byproducts which have not been proven by randomized controlled trials to be completely safe) have a legitimate argument. Do you believe that even if disinfection does help prevent diseases, disinfection policy is immoral mass poisoning because toxic chemicals are used and there may be health risks from overexposure to disinfection byproducts?? ”

If both disinfection and fluoridation are implemented by adding known poisons (at sufficiently high exposure levels) to the water, and both are effective in protecting the health of citizens, why on earth does it matter whether one protective method strengthens and repairs dental enamel and the other poisons pathogens? Does chlorine gas exposure or the ingestion of sodium hypochlorite and disinfection byproducts have any proven beneficial health effects?

A side note: On (01-24-2017 04:35 PM) you claimed, “As part of the "better living through chemistry" model promoted by our government, we started fluoridating our water, generously spraying poisons on our food and in our neighborhoods, and pushing drugs starting with the polio vaccine that provided an income to the government. Today, the CDC holds 56 vaccine and adjuvant patents and therefore makes money on every administration of these drugs.”

One of the reasons it is difficult to counter all the “Gish Gallop” accusations ASAs is that a single sentence and accusation can take nearly 3,000 words to adequately address and refute. The article referenced below, which refutes your CDC accusation, concludes, “Whatever money the CDC gets from vaccine licenses is not used to line the hallways of the CDC with gold bars. It’s used to perform more research in more areas of diseases that kill too many people.” FOs excel at adjusting, fabricating and presenting “facts” to fit their agenda.

I contacted the EPA scientist union that FOs allege are “likewise opposed to fluoridation and the politically set EPA MCL/MCLG (08-22-2018 06:59 AM).” In July 2017 I wrote Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, the organization which FOs claim supported the anti-F agenda. The response from the current Senior Vice President was clear, “We do not support a public position of fluoridation.” Also, the entire union never signed off on the original statement – check your facts before posting.

To quote Dr. Haynie, MD (06-27-2018 06:30 PM) ”If they wish to change positions on fluoridation, Dr. Limeback and others have an obligation to make their case before legitimate scientific forums and not simply bring arguments to lay audiences that have been rejected by experts.”

I showed several health professionals your specific charges outlined above and asked for their observations. Their replies:

“The ADA is a professional organization governed by its member dentists. Dentists direct and control the ADA, not the other way around, as you seem to believe. Neither the ADA, nor its governing Board of Trustees would ever attempt to stifle the free speech of anyone, certainly including its member dental professionals. If it did, not only does it have no power to “enforce” any such unconstitutional activity, it would likely result in widespread, mass resignation of its membership, which the ADA certainly does not desire, nor can afford. “

“There are no repercussions [for challenging ADA policy]. If you are practicing techniques outside of acceptable dental care, like claiming mercury issues and ripping out silver fillings to replace them with white fillings, then yes, you can be called out for not meeting the standard of care. That is typically under a state dental association’s purview. No believing in CWF? They might be approached by the state dental Association to try to educate them. But there are no repercussions. And you don’t lose your license”

“Claims like these promote the fairy tale that only dentists and the ADA understand CWF's benefits. For reasons I don't entirely understand the anti's allegations of malfeasance and worse stick a bit to dentists in these public debates. But dentists are but a small sliver of the overwhelming professional and scientific consensus that CWF prevents cavities, is important and safe. It is simply crackpottery to argue that fluoridation enjoys the favorable judgement of such a spectrum and number of legitimate professionals only because of social pressure from the fear of "loosing" ADA membership.”

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

“A wide variety of plants are sensitive to fluoride toxicity… Fluoride is an accumulative poison in plant foliage. Accumulation may be gradual over time… Avoid fluoridated water.” - in “Fluorine Toxicity in Plants” (2018)

“fluoride concentration as low as 0.5 mg F-/l can adversely affect invertebrates and fishes, safe levels below this fluoride/l concentration are recommended in order to protect freshwater animals from fluoride pollution.” - in "Fluoride toxicity to aquatic organisms: a review" (2003)

But the focus of this thread and the AARP is the adverse impact of fluoridation policy on Senior Health which includes the immorality of using municipal water supplies to dose the population with a substance which is known to be medically contraindicated for many with inflammatory, immune system, thyroid and kidney disease.

Moreover, fluoride accumulates in bodies, brains and bones over time where it is known to cause or worsen conditions including arthritis, brittle bones, kidney disease and dementia. Baby boomers are the first generation that has been subjected to long term chronic low dose exposure.

See today's press release that mentions 5 fluoride studies presented this month at an international conference of scientists addressing issues in environmental exposure and health. Those studies again validate the adverse health impact of low dose exposure to fluoride. The press release also includes a quote from Attorney Paul Beeber on the political manipulation of fluoridationists who attempt to influence decision makers with distraction.

Click here to go to the first February 2015 comment and use PREVIOUS button in order to advance through the 60 comments from about 20 seniors prior to the troop of fluoride trolls trashing this forum with long off topic and frequently abusive comments.

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Obviously there is no concern for the dental health of salmon. Thus, artificial fluoridation of the Sacramento river, or any other body of water, is truly about dumping of toxic industrial waste with the pretense that humans, salmon, or any other species have some negligible benefit. This is truly worse than ridiculous!

There is no science proving any benefit of ingesting industrial waste, such as fluorine compounds. These are labeled by law as “category 6 toxic industrial waste”. Just telling the masses, and some venally interested entities, that there is “some benefit” does not pass the evidential burden that speaks for itself, regardless of all the opinions and dilution of damage claims by authoritative bodies.

Obviously the motto holds true that, “the solution to pollution is dilution”, and the masses serve as filters due to wide spread gullibility! Again, all fluorides are toxic componds of fluorine (F) gas, not meant for consumption: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng0046.html

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

The enviorrmental effects of fluoridation are not limited to potential effects on salmon and other species of fish. The effect reminds me of what happened to avocado ranchers in Escondido after fluoridiaotn began there in 2005. The sodium content of the water surged past 100 ppm which causes saline intolerant avocado trees to developo leaf blight with dried leaves and low fruit production. I was criticized by fluoridation promoters who claimed it was not due to fluoridation becaue most of the total saline came from industries along the Colorado River and only a small fraction of hte toal was due to fluosilicic acid plus sodium hydroxide infusions required to neutralize the fluoridaiton chemicals. But these individuals failed to grasp that the last saline infusions that wre responsible for exceeding the tolerable limit for avocados of 100 ppm was the sodium from fluoridation.

The effect was so substantial that farmers objected so strongly here locally that the Escondido water district had no choice but to respond. But instead of halting fluoridation (where the water district operator there actually believes fluoride is a food and is harmless at all times to everyone) the city decided to build a multi million dollar separate pipeline for the avocado orchards that is reverse osmosis treated to remove the saline (and fluoride).

Tax;payers of course have to pay for all thiseven though the real solution was to halt fluoridation wihcih doesn't reduce dental caries anyway. But no, the city went with the new constuirction to save the trees from saline blight.

The salmon industry in Sacrameno is a similar situation. Many things contributed to the decline in salmon runs over the years including a large drought one year. But fluoridation remains and droughts come and go, all while salmon populations up the river itself remain far below normal. What does this all tell you?

If fluoridationists had their own way and argued to the EPA that fluoride discharges into rivers where salmon spawn have absolutely no effect on salmon migration or populations, then fluoridation may as well spread to all the cities along the Sacramento river where salmon spawn and all the tributaries and other rivers where salmon spawn as well. All fluoridation of rivers and people of course though is abolutely useless.

If we are going to discuss good scientists vs bad scientists, let's talk about the Kumar data which were thought good enough to publish, and yet that data was a grossly misinterpreted to affect public policy for everyone in the country. The mean difference between fluorotic teeth and control teeth was not significantly outside experimental error. The claim that fluorotic teeth experience less dental decay is wrong and made no sense in the first place since enamel hypoplasia is a more accurate term for it, where thinned enamel does not protect teeth dentin as well as normal.

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

I don't give up anything I have stated. None of the tributaries are fluoridated. Only the main stem is. And the salmon levels remain far below normal there and the river there remains fluoridated. And as stated before, it may be that salmon can adjust and imprint the chemical conditions that prevail and grow in number again. But why is this necessary in the first place? There are many contributors to salmon population reduction and fluoride is known to be one of them. And fluoridation of spawning grounds continues in spite of salmon population problems that have occurred.

You believe what you want. And I believe fluoridation of the river is wrong.

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Richard, your quote: "I'm looking at the bar graph. There are there categories in each bar and the mainstream category of salmon returns is what was decimated and remained so all through the years reported, to 2017, just as I said."

The Bar Graph is entitled "Figure 1." There are three categories in each bar. 1.) Hatcheries, 2.) Mainstem (not mainstream), and 3.) Tributaries.

All three categories showed improvement after 2009. I invite all readers of this thread to look at the graph and judge this for themselves.

You said water fluoridation began in 2010. You also said water fluoridation was responsible for the collapse of the salmon industry in the Sacramento River. The evidence does not support your outrageous theory. There is no evidence for it. Indeed, the evidence debunks your claims.

Give it up, Richard. You are embarrassing yourself. You call yourself a scientist, yet you are unable to accept empirical evidence, the foundation of all science, when it disagrees with your agenda.